 |
 |
Is Rock The Vote Warming Up?
August 25th 01:47:02 PM
Does Rock The Vote realize that Social Security is going to be the big issue of the fall session in Congress and that young people overwhelmingly support reform? Their last three blog posts have all been about Social Security. Today they stooped to a new low in propaganda, by posting this picture. Little did Rock The Vote realize that the picture is what our generation will be like when we get old, if we don't get personal accounts. Thanks RTV!
Posted by Chris Schrimpf
Comments
Oh we realized that the picture could be taken a couple of different ways, and we posted both points of view. Thanks for the link, though.
Posted by Terrance on August 25th 04:17:15 PM
Personal accounts AREN'T going away because WE'RE not going away.
Every day Social Security becomes a heavier burden for our generation...without personal accounts you can cut our benfits by over 25% or increase our taxes by over 50%.
I - and 2/3 of our peers - are with personal accounts.
Rock the Vote, you are in danger of becoming an irrelevant factor in youth politics if you continue to push the anti-reform line in this debate. Everyone has started to realize that you represent AARP not us.
Come on, see the light, personal accounts are something we want. It'd be a shame to see an otherwise cool organization drift into political irrelevance.
Posted by Jonathan Swanson on August 25th 05:37:08 PM
Crock the Vote come around??? Then how would they get all that AARP money, or is it organized labor?
I tend to get these things confused. Sorry, I'm obviously not smart enough to control my own money.
Posted by Adam Cahn on August 26th 01:27:35 AM
RTV Repost:
Folks, as much as social security is a huge ripoff, ya'll should oppose bush's "privatization" plan too. Why? Bush's privatization plans insofar as he has any are to establish government accounts to hold government sanctioned equity funds possibly government managed. This would allow for all kinds of big government corruption and political interference in at least two ways:
1.) If the government controls the voting rights for the stocks in these funds or influences those who do, we will see business decisions decided by senators or government bureaucrats through control of this fund's voting rights. Any CEO who would dare exercise independence of thought and action would be voted out by bureaucrats who control majority voting rights of all public corporations by virtue of controlling the voting rights of the largest retirement fund in america.
Even if voting rights are delegated to the fund manager like in FERS*, the feds control which fund manager gets to manage the fund and so, they still control the rights.
* FERS or the Federal Employee Retirement System has its equity or 'C' fund managed and voting rights controlled by Barclays Global Investors but could switch to another should they not exercise their voting rights the 'right' way.
see http://banking.senate.gov/97_04hrg/043097/witness/mehle.htm
2.) Even without rights, legislators or bureaucrats could determine what companies are 'safe' enough or 'worthy' of being invested in and thus which will be allowed to receive an influx of capital from the largest equity fund in america, the hypothetical privatized ss fund.
No, as I've stated before the right kind of privatization is to simply allow people to opt out of the system or to allow people to put their forcibly set aside money in *any* FDIC insured bank CD or account they desire at *any* bank.
Posted by Noid on August 26th 03:58:20 PM
RTV Repost:
Folks, as much as social security is a huge ripoff, ya'll should oppose bush's "privatization" plan too. Why? Bush's privatization plans insofar as he has any are to establish government accounts to hold government sanctioned equity funds possibly government managed. This would allow for all kinds of big government corruption and political interference in at least two ways:
1.) If the government controls the voting rights for the stocks in these funds or influences those who do, we will see business decisions decided by senators or government bureaucrats through control of this fund's voting rights. Any CEO who would dare exercise independence of thought and action would be voted out by bureaucrats who control majority voting rights of all public corporations by virtue of controlling the voting rights of the largest retirement fund in america.
Even if voting rights are delegated to the fund manager like in FERS*, the feds control which fund manager gets to manage the fund and so, they still control the rights.
* FERS or the Federal Employee Retirement System has its equity or 'C' fund managed and voting rights controlled by Barclays Global Investors but could switch to another should they not exercise their voting rights the 'right' way.
see http://banking.senate.gov/97_04hrg/043097/witness/mehle.htm
2.) Even without rights, legislators or bureaucrats could determine what companies are 'safe' enough or 'worthy' of being invested in and thus which will be allowed to receive an influx of capital from the largest equity fund in america, the hypothetical privatized ss fund.
No, as I've stated before the right kind of privatization is to simply allow people to opt out of the system or to allow people to put their forcibly set aside money in *any* FDIC insured bank CD or account they desire at *any* bank.
www.socialslavery.com
Posted by Noid on August 26th 04:00:05 PM
I apologize for the multiple posts. It wasn't working before.
Posted by Noid on August 26th 07:01:38 PM
Noid,
While I sympathize, I disagree. Suddenly dismantling the system would create a massive economic shock, the outcome of which we cannot predict.
Once Voluntary PRA's are successful, we can add greater and greater freedom. In the meantime, let's get people more comfortable with handling their money.
Baby steps.
Put differently, if we were to completely dismantle the system, and a few people made some catostrophic choices around the same time, the left would engage in unprecedented "I told you so" demogaguery.
Contast that with limiting (at least for now) investment decisions to a conservative mix of stocks and bonds. If we limit investment risk to the S&P 500, people will get more comfortable while still earning a historic annual rate of return of approximately 7.7%. If, over time, another course of action makes sense, we can always do that.
I hope I'm helpful. This stuff takes time.
Posted by Adam Cahn on August 27th 12:40:17 AM
I propose two different solutions, both of which are gradual. 1) Allowing people to partially opt out of the system starting at about age 50 and increasing in opt out amount the younger you are. 2) Same deal only you have to put it in an FDIC insured bank account. I'd prefer 1, but I think 2 is a step in the right direction that could eventually lead to the system's end *without granting the feds any more power to screw with our corporations*
Posted by Noid on August 27th 01:06:15 AM
Good luck getting that through Congress.
Posted by Adam Cahn on August 27th 01:12:49 AM
What about investing money little by little into secure bonds, CDs, or IRA's....althougating IRA's aren't as secure. The general population doesn't know how to handle stocks, portfolios, or even a small budget. Educating the public will be just as expensive as trying to recover a lost cause. To the generation that it will effect: every man for himself.
Posted by Elizabeth on September 08th 04:22:39 PM
Elizabeth-
Saying that the general population doesn't know how to handle stocks or even a small budget is one of the greatest myths promulgated by opponents of reform. Every worker on the factory floor has a 401(k) and they would never want the government to take it away and control it for them. Proponents of Big Government fear any reform that eliminates government hand holding. But at some point your parents have to stop holding you back and let you be free to prosper.
Posted by Chris on September 08th 05:33:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
